282 P.3d 456
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- In 1997 Pitkin County approved Aspen Highlands Village (PUD) with deed restrictions reserving units for affordable housing and rent caps; MAA provision allowed seasonal occupancy by MAA students/faculty with owner rights to select tenants; Meyerstein purchased the property on Sept 15, 2005; January 25, 2008 Authority issued NOV alleging violations of the deed restrictions; Meyerstein challenged the Authority’s interpretation at a hearing, leading to Resolution 2008-04 upholding the Authority’s authority and MAA’s summer occupancy rights; Meyerstein filed suit seeking declaratory relief, a 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim, and takings claim; district court granted summary judgment for defendants and dismissed §1983 and takings for statute of limitations reasons; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent-control deed restriction vs. anti-rent control statute | Meyerstein argues the restriction illegally cap rents and is unenforceable. | City/Authority contend the restriction falls within statutory protections or is enforceable. | Remand for factual development; statute retroactivity analyzed later. |
| Retroactivity of amended rent-control statute | Amendments should apply retroactively to restraints on Meyerstein. | Amendments clarify law and may apply retroactively. | Amendments may apply retroactively; statute clarified, not changed. |
| Construction of MAA provision (may be occupied) | “May” is permissive; Meyerstein may choose not to rent to MAA. | “May” gives MAA the option to occupy with owner’s right to select tenants. | “May be occupied” intended to grant MAA occupancy option; Meyerstein must rent to MAA if it uses the rooms. |
| Section 1983 and takings statute of limitations | Claims may be timely under continuing violation or not barred. | Claims time-barred; accrual upon purchase or NOV. | Takings claim time-barred; §1983 claim partly time-barred, but the St. Regis Hotel-related claim not clearly time-barred and remanded. |
| Authority hearing and due process; board authority to interpret MAA | Board lacked authority and biased proceedings; misinterpretation of MAA. | Board had authority; due process not violated; interpretation necessary. | Board authority affirmed; no due process violation shown; discretion to interpret MAA preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C., 3 P.3d 30 (Colo. 2000) (ambiguity in pre-amendment rent-control statute; tells scope of deed restrictions)
- Denver Cir. for the Performing Arts v. Briggs, 696 P.2d 299 (Colo. 1985) (C.R.C.P. 57 vs. 106(a)(4) review may be simultaneous when appropriate)
- Beacom v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 657 P.2d 440 (Colo. 1983) (declaratory relief liberally construed; actual controversy required)
- Lakewood Fire Prot. Dist. v. City of Lakewood, 710 P.2d 1124 (Colo. App. 1985) (declaratory relief remedial to settle rights and obligations)
- Abromeit v. Denver Career Serv. Bd., 140 P.3d 44 (Colo. App. 2005) (retroactivity of statutes; vested rights and remedial vs substantive change)
- Ficarra v. Dep't of Regulatory Agencies, 849 P.2d 6 (Colo. 1993) (definition of vested rights; retroactivity analysis)
- Summers, 208 P.3d 251 (Colo. 2009) (prospective vs retroactive operation of statutes; clarify vs change)